Roll for Effect or Intent?

[zarionofarabel]

"We want to get the names of the people involved."
"Okay, roll."
"17"
"You spend a few days roughing up suspects at bars and get a name."
"But I wouldn't do that..."

This alone is why I am confused how to use the "roll for intent" thing. On a different forum I was alerted to the fact that my OP terms are wrong, that the rolling dichotomy is usually framed as Task Resolution vs Conflict Resolution. With Task the moments in the narrative where interruption should occur for a roll seem intuitive. With Conflict I am at a loss as to where the interruption should occur.

 

[overgeeked]

This alone is why I am confused how to use the "roll for intent" thing. On a different forum I was alerted to the fact that my OP terms are wrong, that the rolling dichotomy is usually framed as Task Resolution vs Conflict Resolution. With Task the moments in the narrative where interruption should occur for a roll seem intuitive. With Conflict I am at a loss as to where the interruption should occur.

The alternative is:

"I want to hunt down who did this."

"Okay, roll X."

"I got a 21."

"That succeeds. What does that look like?"

There's nothing about conflict / intent resolution that requires the referee remove the player's agency.

When you ask for a roll is up to you. For me, the dice are there to inject randomness. Once you don't know what should happen next, make the roll.

 

[Deset Gled]

The questions as phrased are more about granularity. The task of blackmailing the NPC is broken down into 3 sub tasks: 1 Get over the wall. 2 Get into the office. 3 Find the documents. And the ever important but unmentioned - 4 - Get out of the compound with the documents.
And it can further be broken down into:
A - Get to the base of the wall.
B - Toss a grappling hook and get it to catch on something.
C - Succeed in a climb check.
D - Get down off the wall into the compound.
E - Sneak to the office (you do know which of the 10 buildings in the compound is the office????)
F - Open the locked office door.
G - Search for the documents.
H - Deal with guard that noticed the unlocked office door.....
I - Open the safe(because you failed to find the documents outside the safe)
J - Figure out which of the hundreds of documents are the ones in question.
K - Get out of the compound alive and with the documents.
All of the above are while being stealthy. Possibly complicated if the compound isn't really a bad place and the guards are simple employees.

One can assume that the task of blackmailing the NPC is just one sub task of a larger scale task. Maybe the NPC in question is the one that can grant an audience with the King so the PCs can make the argument about sending troops to the border.

This is what I noticed as well. I don't think "effect or intent" is an accurate description of what's being presented.

To me, the better question is: What part of the game is being played? What you break down into many steps vs what you glomp together is basically how you determine what part of the game gets attention and what's filler used to get from one point to the next.

There are many ways to choose when a roll is needed. Some philosophies break it down into narrative steps; you roll the dice when you want the story to have different possible outcomes. Some philosophies focus more on the game; you roll the dice when you want the option to fail or succeed to be meaningful.

Personally, in actual play I ignore most of that kind of game-theory breakdown and focus more on the time it takes for the group to get through the scene and how much fun people are having. What your group spends a lot of time on is hopefully the part that they enjoy the most, and should therefore be the part that has the most rolls. If your group is getting bored with a scene taking too long, that's when you need to start grouping multiple things into less rolls and getting though it faster. If your group is getting super excited about the details, that's when you start breaking things down into more steps and more rolls.

So, going back to the blackmail example:

If the goal of the game is to play a gritty game of action and adventure, have the players go through every step above. The acts of breaking and entering, and the fear factor of stealthy sneaking are the core of the gameplay. This scene could be an entire session.

If you're playing a social-based spy game where the goal is interact with many factions, play them against each other, and roleplay the interactions, then go with the single "Blackmail" roll. Obviously, this blackmail is only one tiny step in a larger plot of playing A against B. It should only take up a minute or two of game play.

 

[Piperken]

...Roll for Intent [Goal Oriented Rolls]: The roll is made to determine if the goal the character is tying to accomplish is successful.

So, while I understand the "Roll for Intent" in principle, I have trouble translating that to what is supposed to happen at the table. I am not sure how to implement "goal oriented rolls" in play. So for anyone who voted for "Roll for Intent" (or who didn't but understands and has utilized it) how do you do it?...

Any downtime activity individual characters may want to undertake in D&D or an OSR/adjacent game can involve this kind of roll.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I use it primarily if players have different goals happening simultaneously and I don't want to take up game time doing every roll.

They'd describe it, then I'd have them roll and I'd provide the information and/or we'd work together to come up with the events of how it was successful or unsuccessful.

Important: After they describe how they're doing it, I'd tell them HOW LONG that task might take.

When enough time passes in game, the player rolls.

If they fail, we'd come up with appropriate complications.

In any case, I'd rarely have it pass/fail with a single roll. I'd probably use 3 different skills.

I am not sure I have ever encountered a "roll for intent" game, at least not one that doesn't want a fairly detailed explanation of action. And that I would call more a "one roll resolution" system than a roll for intent system.

The biggest problem with roll for intent as described in the OP is that it really doesn't embrace player agency.

"We want to get the names of the people involved."
"Okay, roll."
"17"
"You spend a few days roughing up suspects at bars and get a name."
"But I wouldn't do that..."

I don't see how it takes away player agency. You let the player describe how they do it. I wouldn't say, "you rough up some people and get information"

I'd ask, "what methods will you use to get the names"

I feel like I'm rambling now, so I'll stop.

 

[Reynard]

I don't see how it takes away player agency. You let the player describe how they do it. I wouldn't say, "you rough up some people and get information"

I'd ask, "what methods will you use to get the names"

I feel like I'm rambling now, so I'll stop.

Then I am.not sure how it qualifies as different.
"I rough up the locals until.someone squeals."
"Okay. Roll."
How is that different than "I pick the lock."?

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Then I am.not sure how it qualifies as different.
"I rough up the locals until.someone squeals."
"Okay. Roll."
How is that different than "I pick the lock."?

One is you dictating what the players do, the other one is asking them what they do.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

This alone is why I am confused how to use the "roll for intent" thing. On a different forum I was alerted to the fact that my OP terms are wrong, that the rolling dichotomy is usually framed as Task Resolution vs Conflict Resolution. With Task the moments in the narrative where interruption should occur for a roll seem intuitive. With Conflict I am at a loss as to where the interruption should occur.

Because you are making a false dichotomy of minutia.

"I roll to pick the lock" = where does the point of failure interrupt? the pick breaking? the lock opening a bit then jamming? taking too long to pick and getting caught? I can think of more... .."You tried to pick the lock and failed, and now its jammed. You must find some other approach."

"I roll to break in and get the stuff" = where does the point of failure interrupt? = exactly where it did for rolling to pick the lock = wherever you want to put the problem.

... which could even be "you roll to break in and fail, the lock at the front door you were picking is now jammed. You must find some other approach."

By and large this is not a valid comparison as task and conflict are not different in the ways you are trying to put them.

If you are saying that you have trouble thinking of all the things that can go wrong in a breaking and entering scenario and you need a player to step-by-step walk through it to think of those things... well... fine. But that is an entirely different thing than what you posted or other posted, or replied et al.

You can have the player talk you through their "conflict" in its entirety the same way you typed it in your OP... then just pick one of those things to go wrong on a failed roll. handle the fail, go from there...